Told to remove blog posts describing patented algorithm - <AUTHOR> http://sites.google.com/site/redcodenl/ <comment><USER4> IAAPL (I am a patent lawyer), but I am at the very beginning of my career. Anyway, non-lawyers often are too credulous when they get nastygrams from the other side. Don't believe everything they say to you! It's amazing what non- lawyers will believe and do just because they get a mean-sounding email.

That being said, one of the fundamentally unfair things about the legal system is how expensive trials are. Even if the other side here has no case, they might be able to haul you into court and run up expenses for you. Maybe you can become a cause celebre of the anti-software patent blogosphere?

<comment><USER5> If they go to court and he does win the case wouldn't the cost of his lawyers be paid by the loosing side, so, he in that case would not lose anything and perhaps might even be awarded nominal damages if the other side pursued the case friviously.

<comment><USER4> This depends on many factors. 1) What country the lawsuit takes place in. Unfortch I only know US law. Here in the US, the factfinder (a lawyer word for either the judge or the jury) can order legal costs to the winning party under certain circumstances, but those are rare. I have heard anecdotally that in Britain legal fees are always paid by the losing side.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Oh dear. I can see the open-source and pirate communities coming down on these guys like a ton of bricks. I wouldn't be surprised to see a CDDB-style distributed database and server and accompanying mobile apps up by the end of next week. Shazam's CTO may well have been better off turning a blind eye.

It's got all the elements hackers love: software patents, an underdog, free speech and an interesting technical problem.

<comment><USER7> I doubt anything will happen. Stories with similar elements don't usually end with an underdog victory [1]. If the software was already released, people could create "I'm mirroring the Shazam code, come and get me Shazam!" blog posts. The news cycle would have been well-fed, and might have generated enough hype to cause the Shazam CTO to learn to leave the issue untouched.

However, now someone must develop the code. It'll take time. When it is done there will only be passing interest in the whole issue. This is interesting enough that it'll get some action on blogs over the next week, but I don't see this becoming a long-term win for the original author. Just Shazam and the blogs.

[1] One example is "How I Got Sued by Facebook". [http://petewarden.typepad.com/searchbrowser/2010/04/how-i- go...](http://petewarden.typepad.com/searchbrowser/2010/04/how-i-got-sued-by- facebook.html) . It combines elements hackers love: the rights to your information, an underdog, free speech, and an interesting technical problem (indexing all of Facebook). But no public databases of Facebook user data sprung up as a result.

<comment><USER8> The reason for that is that people who have capabilities of doing that know that its not a good thing. The data can be used for re identification attacks against user privacy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Great example of the problem with software patents. Landmark has a method for music-matching. They would love to be the only one having access to that technology. The confusion starts where the patent system is meant to only protect how their particular implementation matches music and not the concept of music matching at all. They on the other hand argue, that the method described by the author is similar to what they have patented - after all, it uses the same fundamental CS concepts such as hash-table lookups etc...

As other mentioned, the idea with patents was to offer people a limited time monopoly on their innovations in exchange for publishing them so others could use/enhance these ideas instead of reinventing the wheel over and over. I have not seen one instance where this works out for software...

<comment><USER10> >Landmark has a method for music-matching.

No they have a patent the idea of music-matching, not the implementation.

I could have a patent on the idea of a car that defies gravity - and you pay up when you actually invent a flying car.

<comment><USER9> This is not how it works. In the patent application you have to describe how your invention works.

In software patents, the implementation is described in such general terms that a lot of the time, any implementation can be said to use the method described in the patent. This is my biggest problem with software patents: once you abstract your solution enough, it isn't of much use to anybody, hence the value of the patent to the general public is null while it still allows you to block out competitors that want to find a solution to the same/similar problem although your patent is of no help to them actually solving the problem.

It is this skewed relationship that drives me crazy. Licensing a software patent only allows you to come up with your own solution a lot of the time, it does not save you the development cost.

If you license a patent for some industrial process it saves you huge amounts of research cost so licensing the patent is actually attractive.

Software should only be patentable if the patent provides actual value in solving the problem it claims to solve. Since useable software implementation are so specific, this may rule out patenting software at all.

<comment><USER10> Not in the US, although implementation patents are easier to defend you can write very broad patents.

You can have a business method patent, eg look at the prices charged by various retailers and buy the lowest one, or even a patent on the plot of a novel. Both of these have been patented in the US.

Your 'invention' no longer has to be workable for it to be patented nor do you have to demonstrate a working implementation.

That's the issue with a lot of software patents on things like H264 - <USER2> patent can simply be on the concept of compressing video, you don't have to invent a particular encoding scheme.

<comment><USER11> But the law was not intended to work that way. This is why bilski has gone so far. They were trying to do exactly what you describe and they probably won't get the patent in the end. The supreme court will probably find some way to not revolutionize patents by making the decision so specific that only this case will be affected.

<comment><USER10> The supreme court decided to let people fight it out in court.

What this means is that patents only work for cartels of large companies forming a patent pool to keep a technology (eg. H264) to themselves and patent trolls who have no other business so can't be violating any other patents.

For anyone else - even if you have a patent on a real invention, and can afford to defend it in court, you are likely to be violating dozens of the large company's patents (how could you know) and so are going to lose.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is nonsense. Publishing the details of a process __cannot __violate a patent. The patent system was created specifically to enable the public to see and discuss the latest state of the art. Are these clowns going to try sending take-down notices to the patent office's web-site next??

(Besides, algorithms cannot be patented in the EU, so it is impossible that this code violates any patent.)

<comment><USER13> Algorithms can be(and is being)patented in the EU. It is the software you cannot patent.

<comment> loup-vaillant Wait a minute: what is the difference between an algorithm and a piece of software? I don't see any.

<comment><USER14> There's a massive difference. Here, let me show you:

 _Algorithm_ :

        Algorithm Maximum
          Input: Two numbers M and N.
          Output: The largest number of M and N.

          if M > N, then return M
          else return N

_Software_ :

        // Returns the largest of m and n.
        int Maximum(int m, int n) {
          if (m > n) return n;
          else return n;
        }

There. Clear?

<comment><USER15> I'm writing a compiler right now that can compile your _algorithm_ into x86 instructions.

Does your algorithm automatically become software at the time of completion of my compiler?

Or does it become software only when its compiled down to machine code?

<comment><USER14> :( I was being silly and ironic. I was actually trying to show that there is no difference at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that he is looking at this backwards.

If his goal is not to actually implement the algorithm, but just to discuss or understand it, he can use the lawyers to his advantage. He's already received the two US patent numbers, which contain published (and freely publishable) text describing the algorithm in great detail. And, since the lawyers are interested in the international implications, it should be simple for them to provide a list of (or better yet, the full text of) all international patents granted or applied for.

My point is not that software patents (or patents in general) are good or bad or harmful or useful. My point is that, for better or worse, a patent represents an exchange-- the inventor is granted a limited-time monopoly on the implementation of an innovation _in exchange for publication of the details._

<comment><AUTHOR> didn't the Dutch lawyer say he could get fined? If it's your nuts on the block, would you have the guts to stand up to them?

<comment><USER12> He should find a different lawyer.

<comment><USER17> agreed

<comment><USER18> cant we just copy it and post it on a shady website such as 4chan or something. And then use site like Metaoptimizee.com/qa/ which is a machine learning Q&A website to publicize it!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This illustrates one of the major problems with patent law: uncertainty. Nobody, including the pros, can tell the poster whether the Shazam claim is legitimate or not. Therefore, under the threat of untold financial penalties, real or not, Shazam can simply bully whoever they want.

Although I know nothing about European patent law and almost nothing about US law, here is the relevant US code:

"Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority _makes_ , uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent," (emphasis added). [1].

It seems to me the issue would be whether writing the code for patented software constitutes "making" it. Who knows. The patent system is such a joke.

[1] [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_35_00000271---- 000...](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_35_00000271----000-.html)

<comment><USER10> >it seems to me the issue would be whether writing the code for patented software constitutes "making" it.

That's the problem with software patents. The patent must be published - <USER3> the whole point. But in software writing down the algorithm is also making an implementation. It's like the pornography laws that defined looking at an image on a computer screen = producing an image and therefore equivalent to being present when the act took place.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> If you have US patent numbers, you can get the related European patents either from either <http://ep.espacenet.com> or <http://www.patentlens.net>. For example, [http://www.patentlens.net/patentlens/patents.html?patnums=US...](http://www.patentlens.net/patentlens/patents.html?patnums=US_6990453#tab_3) shows related patents for one of the two US patents mentioned.

</comment><comment><USER21> Patents cannot be used to prevent someone publishing research, source code, explaining how things work, etc. Infringement happens when the patented matter becomes part of commercial product, is being used commercially or sold. Not by publishing either textual description or source code. An example of this is x264 codec which is perfectly legal (to distribute and work on) even in countries that happily allow patenting everything under the sun. The infringement happens when it becomes used as part of the product or service.

Patent system's primary 'deal' with the inventor is "time-limited monopoly in return for a disclosure of how you did it".

Leaving aside the question on patentability of software and algorithms, I am sure talking to FFII, EFF and similar organizations might help gathering traction for a proper pushback.

<comment><USER22> Publishing doesn't violate a patent, but it doesn't require commercial activity - building your own device, or writing your own software, for your own use constitutes a violation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> The LAME MP3 encoder uses technology covered by patents. The LAME developers distribute the code in source code form only. The developers say that it is legal to distribute the code because the source code is a description of the patent and not a working implementation of the patent. See last question at <http://lame.sourceforge.net/tech-FAQ.txt> for more info.

</comment><comment><USER24> Assholes. I am living in Ukraine, and I am willing to host any patent- infringing code or documents on my Ukrainian servers.

</comment><comment><USER25> One take-away from this is this, though:

When it comes to patents - the fact that your software is non-commercial, or that you invented it independently without knowing about the patents does not matter.

Unless you can prove you created the infringing work before the original patent applicants did, in which case you can invalidate and/or take over the patent, patent rights are fairly absolute, and have nothing to do with derivative works or anything like that (which is why software patents suck so much....)

Patents are granted via application, and apply unilaterally, regardless of how the infringing works were created. The only defences in general against patent infringement are a)your product does not actually infringe on the patent because it's different enough and b)attacking the validity of the patent itself.

Contrast with Copyright, which is granted automatically, and independent creation of similar works (even identical) is permissible, as long as they were truly independent and not copying each other.

(This is why clean-room reverse-engineering techniques, where one group revere engineers the software and documents it's function, and a completely separate group who's never seen the original work writes new code to those specifications) work for software when it comes to copyright, but not against patents.

<comment><USER26> Even if you could prove such a thing it's still very expensive to do so.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I was wondering how to contribute with my bit of pressure. I'm a regular Shazam user, and was thinking of sending them an email telling that I don't want to make business with companies that deal with bullies like Landmark Digital Services, that I'm uninstalling their app (even though I paid for it) and will be campaigning against it among my friends.

But then I thought Shazam might just be another victim of this messed up patent system. On the other hand, they're making profit out of it and favouring and legitimating Landmark Digital Services on the way.

What do you think?

<comment><USER22> According to this comment <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1497450> Shazam sold the patents to Landmark, which the parent of the linked comment pointed out is owned by BMI. Shazam deserves any flack it gets and more if those are true.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Okay, so I am not a lawyer, but I don't get it. One of the most know audio matching systems is from Kalker and Haitsma, published 2002. [http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.103...](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.103.2175&rep=rep1&type=pdf)

</comment><comment><USER17> I'm no lawyer but my advice would be to object to the patents in your jurisdiction (and the US, if possible) by writing to the appropriate local patent offices. State that their work isn't novel as it's remarkably similar to your own. If your work is based on "public domain" knowledge (for example techniques that have been previously published in a book, or on the web), it is important that you refer to those.

I'd also speak to a different IP lawyer, one who is familiar with software patents. You shouldn't have to pay for an initial consultation.

EDIT: You could also speak to your local EFF. They'd have better advice.

</comment><comment><USER29> Reminds me of when I accidentally violated a software patent in less then an hour. <http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=139913>

<comment><USER30> You didn't do it in less than an hour, you did it with your whole careers worth of knowledge acquisition + 1 hour of implementation.

If as you say your steps were _a priori_ obvious and trivially implemented and were at the time that the relevant patent was applied for (or relevant invention made in the US) then the patent is very weak and a citation against it should be easy to find.

What appears to be the case is that professionals working in the field for a substantial time were not able to solve the problem easily (eg 2Bdecided's comments).

In short you should give yourself more credit.

TIL: AVIsynth is a script based video editor.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Its _not_ Shazam who are making the fuss though, its Landmark (<http://www.landmarkdigital.com/about>) who are owned by BMI (the record company - RIAA?)

<comment><USER31> Shazam sold them the patents.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I'm not a lawyer and I may be wrong but can't we use the patent vagueness against itself in a sort of "patent aikido" defense.

It's seems like it would be trivially easy to release this source code given the way the patent is described.

This source code does pattern matching for audio, sound and music. I looked at the patents in question. They only discuss this method for use with "audio files", "audio samples", "sounds", and "music".

However the patent doesn't cover other types of waveforms with changing frequency and amplitude.

With that in mind, couldn't you just change the language used to describe what you code does so that in now describes other types of waveforms that are NOT sound, music and audio?

It seems to me that patent lawyers can either patent the implementation or they can patent the application of their implementation. Simply changing the application of the implementation you coded in a weekend would mean that the patents cited no longer apply to the code he wants to publish.

Also, if these lawyers have never seen the code in question. How are they going to know you released it if it somehow gets released anonymously?

</comment><comment><USER33> This is so depressing.

I have to say, the replies from engineers who have spent some time figuring out how the patent system works have been enlightening and interesting to read.

But none of this matters unless a well funded group (maybe the EFF, maybe some businesses who want to challenge this patent) decides to pick up the cause and fight. There is _no way_ a programmer who coded something in a weekend and put it on his blog is going to be able to go up against a well funded patent holder.

The merits are irrelevant, seriously irrelevant.

This is what depresses me so much about the US legal system. While the law around software patents is absurd, the problem isn't really that software patents exist per se (1), it's that stupid patents are granted and that it is brutally expensive in terms of time and money to fight them.

(1) I do consider software patents to be a failed experiment. Sometimes the implementation is so bad that we can say "tried it, didn't work" even if in theory it could have been done better.

</comment><comment><USER34> You know, what's kind of interesting about this whole thing is that it sounds like a case could be made that Shazam themselves are infringing copyrights on the songs in their database. After all, in order to make the database of hashes, they had to make a temporary, unauthorised copy of each song recording.

Similarly, the client-side software makes an unauthorised copy of the music as it records it from the environment to do the test. This seems like it could be contributory infringement on the part of the software writers.

Does anyone know if the record companies ever tried to go after them on these grounds?

</comment><comment><USER35> I still wish some congresscritter would pass a law simply stating "if you can copyright the implementation, then you can't patent it"

</comment><comment><USER36> The problem here is that it's too easy to make and use a software invention once you have a sufficiently detailed description of it (source code). An analogous situation would be the invention of a new homemade bread. A detailed recipe of the bread in a cookbook would make it very easy for anyone to make use of the invention and very hard for the inventor to stop infringement. In such a case, the law must take sides: either it protects the public's right to share information over the right of the inventor to benefit from his invention, or vice versa.

It seems to me that the law sides with the public by forcing the inventor to choose between patent and copyright. If the inventor chooses patent, his invention has protection, but the public is free to share information about it. Indeed, to obtain a patent, the inventor must fully disclose the best way he knows to make and use the invention. On the other, hand, if the inventor chooses copyright, his particular expression is protected, the public is not free to share it (republish it), but the underlying ideas behind his invention are not protected.

So for instance, a musician could patent his unique method of strumming a guitar and he could copyright his music recordings and explanations of his strumming method, but has no way of preventing public discussion generally of his strumming method. His invention does not mean that there can be no more learning and innovation in the field of guitar strumming.

Similarly, a software maker can copyright his expression (source and object code) of his work, and patent the use of his work, but he cannot (should not) prevent public discussion of his work generally.

To hold otherwise would mean that intellectual property (IP) holders could stop all learning and progress in the areas in which they hold their IP. But the purpose of IP is exactly opposite. The US Constitution says that Congress shall have power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts by securing for limited Time to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." (US Const., Art. 1, Sec. 8, Cl. 8)

<comment><USER37> IANAL, but I would hazard that you are wrong on nearly all points. There are very specific rules on the form of a patent application. It used to be/may still be that you had to include stylized drawings of a machine that accomplished the function. Ten thousand pages of code wouldn't cut it. Generally the patent is abstracted from the actual machine. A couple of the problems with software patents is that the abstraction is too great and the claims are too broad. It's the claims that trip up future developers.

The musician example is pretty much bogus, because method patents have been pretty much disallowed, though there is a movement to get them accepted. Method/process patents would bring all innovation to its knees.

Also a misconception about copyright. You can have a copyright without publishing the code, although if you publish it without a copyright, it may be in the public domain. Code copyright is used as a defense against duplication, not innovation.

> Similarly.. Yes indeed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Irritating. The patent tradeoff is disclosure in exchange for monopoly, and Landmark's pretending the disclosure part doesn't have to exist.

</comment><comment><USER39> You could always link to the patents, since they describe the process in so much more detail.

</comment><comment><USER40> Andrew Tridgell's talk on patent defense could be useful for him to read: <http://news.swpat.org/2010/03/transcript-tridgell-patents/>

</comment><comment><USER41> lots of companies send nastygrams like this even if they have no intention of following through with legal action. it costs them nothing (except reputation on HN) and there's a good chance the recipient will get scared and give in without a fight.

there are important issues on the line here and it makes me sad that so many people feel like they need to walk away because of the possible legal expenses.

i know it's easy for me to say this as i've never been sued myself, but for once, just once, i'd like to see someone fight back against something that is so clearly wrong.

</comment><comment><USER42> Letters say nothing about description, the CEO only wants the code out.

BTW I thought there are no software patent laws in EU or EU member states. Just USA and Japan were on the road to insanity some time ago.

<comment><USER43> Read the last letter. It says clearly that his description of the algorithm in the blogpost is in violation of the patent laws.

<comment><USER42> "While we trust your good intentions, yes, we would like you to refrain from releasing the code at all and to remove the blogpost explaining the algorithm."

It doesn't say directly the description is a problem. IMHO it's the whole blogpost, because it contains code.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> I'm pretty sure you could release the code copyright and the code to the FSF, and let it go. I think it's important to struggle against software patents, now more than ever!

</comment><comment><USER45> "why are they targetting me and not the already published implementation of Dan?"

Probably because Dan didn't title his article Creating Shazam in Java

</comment><comment><USER46> Patent +applications+ cannot be infringed.

</comment><comment><USER18> WTF Just write at end your implementation:

License: Research Purpose Only

Any patented invention can be used for research pupose!

To quote from wikipedia: A patent being an exclusionary right does not, however, necessarily give the owner of the patent the right to exploit the patent.[13] For example, many inventions are improvements of prior inventions that may still be covered by someone else's patent.[13] If an inventor takes an existing, patented mouse trap design, adds a new feature to make an improved mouse trap, and obtains a patent on the improvement, he or she can only legally build his or her improved mouse trap with permission from the patent holder of the original mouse trap, assuming the original patent is still in force. On the other hand, the owner of the improved mouse trap can exclude the original patent owner from using the improvement.

Add few new features

<comment><USER47> > _Add few new features_

Or devise some novel features that would allow this marvelous invention to interoperate with existing software!

Then patent the combination and fuck them with it. >:D

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> welcome to the inane world of software patents

<comment> loup-vaillant Remember Paul Graham's words: "One thing I do feel pretty certain of is that if you're against software patents, you're against patents in general." <http://paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html>

I made up my mind, and currently, I think the _whole_ patent system should be abolished.

Some may think we should be safe if software patents are abolished, but we're not. Make a bit of Arduino based hardware that happen to infringe a patent, and you're screwed. In short, patents are hampering the rise of Free Hardware, just like it does Free Software.

It is past time we examine the effects of patents rigorously, or listen to people who have.

<comment><USER49> How would you encourage the development of new pharmaceuticals (the process of which costs vast, vast sums of money and can take decades) if, as soon as the new drug is done, anyone can come and just copy the formula?

I'm not pro-patents on everything, but pharmaceuticals is a case where the patent bargain seems to produce benefits in terms of drugs that otherwise might not be developed.

<comment> loup-vaillant Your argument assumes that you _need_ some kind of artificial encouragement to make the development of pharmaceuticals thrive.

 _Against Intellectual Monopoly_ [1], shows rather strong empirical evidence to the contrary: drug development thrived before patents arrived, and didn't accelerate after. They may even have slowed down.

Your argument is appealing, but most probably wrong.

[1]: [http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfi...](http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm)

<comment><USER49> I'm willing to accept I'm wrong, but could you answer my point so I know exactly how it is that I am? In particular, exactly how is it that the large upfront R&D costs I mentioned would not be a problem in a patent-free world?

Also, I wasn't assuming any kind of 'artificial encouragement'. I was talking about firms spending hundreds of millions of dollars researching drugs, and wanting to earn that back (and, obviously, more) through patent protection. There's nothing artificial about the kind of encouragement that comes from wanting to recoup hundreds of millions of dollars.

<comment> loup-vaillant I didn't address that point because that point is irrelevant. I am not interested in the well being of a particular pharmaceutical firm. I am interested in the well being of the _whole field_. And I suspect, so are you.

It looks like you think that for pharmaceutical to thrive, it needs corporation to be "encouraged" to invest lots of money. You also seem to think that patents are a major provider of that encouragement. If so, the introduction of the patent system should have accelerated innovation.

Empirical evidence shows that it didn't.

I see only 2 explanations: either patents are not an effective encouragement (compared to already existing ones), or their disadvantages nullifies the additional encouragement.

<comment><USER49> Please just explain how it is that you think we would get new, expensive-to- develop drugs, if there were no guarantee of a limited monopoly for the inventor.

Forget the abstract arguments about corporations being "encouraged" or whatever you think I think. Just tell me how it would work.

If it helps, imagine that you run a pharmaceutical firm, and you have the choice to spend hundreds of millions of dollars researching a drug which, once perfected by your researchers, is not owned in any sense (even temporarily) by you, but rather immediately becomes a generic commodity worth fractions of a cent per unit, and which cannot possibly earn you back the money you spent developing it. In that situation, would you start the research? And if not, where will the new drugs come from?

<comment> loup-vaillant > Just tell me how it would work.

Ha ha, that's the beauty of it: I don't know. I just know it works. I know it from a source[1] which I consider reliable. And that source presented empirical observations which strongly support my view.

You keep talking about how it _would_ work, doing what's amounts to a thought experiment. That's valuable, but not nearly as good as actual observations in assessing how the world works.

From the dawn of humanity, the Sun has been observed to rise from a direction and set to a roughly opposite direction. Why? How? For a very long time, no one knew. But only a fool would contradict that observation just because what he _thinks_ of the sun doesn't fit what everybody _sees_.

In short, when your view of the world doesn't fit the observations, update your view of the world.

Now, I see very few ways in which you could still disagree with me: (1) You think I misreported my source. (2) You don't trust my source. (3) You know of very strong evidence which support your view and not mine. So which it is?

[1]: Against Intellectual Monopoly

<comment><USER49> Alright, if you don't know how it _would_ work, but you do know how it _does_ work, tell me how it _does_ work.

What countries are you talking about, what years, what drugs? How _did_ the companies cover the cost of research? What was in it for them? Why did they do it?

I am perfectly willing to amend my views but so far you have done nothing but say you have evidence. Show me! I don't have time to read your source but I am happy to read what you quote as relevant.

<comment> loup-vaillant > I am happy to read what you quote as relevant.

Ah, now we're talking. So, chapter 9, page 247 <http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/imbookfinal09.pdf>

""" You may wonder why we are offering all these details about specific countries, patenting of chemical processes, and pharmaceutical products. For a very simple reason: if patents were a necessary requirement for pharmaceutical innovation as claimed by their supporters, the large historical and cross country variations in the patent protection of medical products should have had a dramatic impact on national pharmaceutical industries. In particular, at least between 1850 and 1980, most drugs and medical products should have been invented and produced in the United States and the United Kingdom, and very little if anything in continental Europe. Further, countries such as Italy, Switzerland and, to a lesser extent, Germany, should have been the laggards of the pharmaceutical industry until recently. Instead the opposite was true for longer than a century."""

I fear you would have to read "all these details about specific countries" if you want anything more substantial. That's 7 pages (from 241 to 247).

<comment><USER49> Interesting, but not very convincing. The argument concerns historical periods when the costs of research were not nearly as high as they are now. As your own source rightly points out:

"the total cost of bringing a new drug to market [is] around $800 million, in year 2000 dollars... [T]his figure suggests a spectacular increase in the cost of innovating. This increase is due, mostly, to the capitalization of the longer and more expensive clinical trials the FDA requires."

It may well be that patents were not always necessary for drug development. It is lazy thinking to conclude from this that they are not necessary now.

<comment><USER50> Simple explanation: patents and the FDA represent barriers to entry for new competitors. Costs going up just means more money spent within the industry, and more profit to be taken later. Costs (and profits) going up are a consequence of patents and regulation, not the other way around. Remove patents and regulation and watch costs plummet.

<comment> loup-vaillant Well, we could remove patents, but removing (or lightening) regulation may be a bit more tricky: you wouldn't want Big Pharma to release something that's more a poison than a medication.

<comment><USER50> And how has regulation changed this? What extra laws do we need in place to make sure companies don't kill people other than "dont kill people"?

<comment> loup-vaillant > And how has regulation changed this?

I don't know. Nor am I aware of any study which shows regulation's effects, or lack thereof. I'm just saying that if regulation has benefits, they should be compared to the drawbacks before we forfeit them. If it has no benefit, of course get rid of it.

Anyway, as I said, I don't know a thing about pharmaceutical regulations. If you do, a few pointers would be welcome.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> The basic technique they are using, to generate a Fourier transform and distinctive signature from a segment of music, and look it up in a hash, is completely obvious. It should not be patentable. The gory details of their algorithm might be patent worthy (although I don't like patents at all). But Roy did not use their algorithm, he invented something similar. Greedy trolls, hate.

It might be a nice idea to integrate music identification with CDDB I think.

Google has a similar system that they are using to prevent the use of copyright music in youtube clips (and they also have patents for their method). I suppose many other systems exist to do the same things. Roy should publish his code. Death to trolls.

</comment><comment><USER18> cant we start <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect> effect?

</comment><comment><USER18> Create a Fake Email address and post it on a Posterous blog. And then we will take care that it is found out for perpetuity! Also we can try to destroy his page rank by making reference to his name!

<comment><USER18> Any way you are currently on second page of Google Search! Better Post it on a .in Indian Web Address Patent laws in india do not allow software patents + no one gives a shit about C&D!

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Please some can someone with good knowledge of proxies and etc post it one 4Chan or Posterous or similar site and then post it as Question on <http://metaoptimize.com/qa/>

Which will get the word out to practitioners in this field ! I currently cant do that since i am on a *.edu ip</comment>


Scalar Ray-Tracer in 7 Lines of k - <AUTHOR> http://nsl.com/k/ray/ray.k <comment><USER2> For the curious without access to a k2/k3 interpreter, here's what this renderer produces (converted to PNG for convenience):

[https://i.imgur.com/OOdW5Dm.png](https://i.imgur.com/OOdW5Dm.png)

If you change that last line to q:R[3]128 you'll get

[https://i.imgur.com/3bDmUhE.png](https://i.imgur.com/3bDmUhE.png)

The high-res version takes me around 6 seconds to render.

<comment><USER3> See also: Arthur's version. [http://nsl.com/k/ray/raya.k](http://nsl.com/k/ray/raya.k)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> HN prevents Arthur's from being resubmit to the site for some reason, but here's a 40 comment discussion on it from 2009:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=944559](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=944559)</comment>


Ask HN: Do VCs often do this? - throwaway-vc-q I worked for a company a couple years ago which was in a very odd situation. Let's call them Company A. They didn't seem to realize that they were being vastly overcharged for IT services by a "firm" that was owned in part by the individuals running the VC firm that gave them funding. They primarily invested other people's money, not their own. This ultimately drove the business into the ground, as they had software that barely did anything and no money left for anything else. They charged over half of the total "investment", hundreds of thousands of dollars, for an app one guy could have built in 2 months. At the same time this was happening, sketchy IT firm was giving free help to their biggest investment (Company B) in an attempt to try and keep them afloat.
It seems to me that the investment in Company A was really just a means of moving money to Company B, which was in a different fund that was running dry. That, and pressuring companies to use the sketchy IT firm to begin with allowed the managing partners of the VC to shift money into their own "business". All of this was even occurring on the same floor of the same office building.
Now I'm just a junior dev now, and this was just an internship I had, but to me this seems like it should be multiple very serious crimes. But I know nothing about that, and I haven't dealt closely with any other VCs.
Is this kind of behavior relatively common? Is it even illegal?
Sorry if this is off topic or not a good post for HN but nobody else I've ever talked to about this has had much to say, and this seems like the most knowledgeable group of people I know of about this sort of thing. <comment><AUTHOR> I've worked in and around private equity as an investor in buyout and VC funds in the US.

There's a fundamental misalignment of interest here as investors might not be the same across both funds.

VCs are supposed to disclose intra portfolio company dealing and services to investors (LPs). They may even require LP approval to do so.

Some private equity firms have historically charged "consulting/management" fees to portfolio companies and they can be offset against management fees at fund by 50% to 100%. Private equity firms in the past have been fined multiple millions of dollars for not disclosing these arrangements to LPs.

This on the other hand looks like intra portfolio company services and if everything you say checks out, I can't imagine the investors approved this. If they know about it or approved it, they may have had the wool pulled over their eyes.

If it is as bad as you say it is, then it's probably illegal and could warrant the SEC getting involved.

<comment><AUTHOR> To add to my comment., the key here is if one portfolio company is selling its services to another portfolio company for an inflated price (i.e. above what is considered to be market).

From my other comment below: "One fund could be doing very well and the VC might be in carry whilst another is doing poorly. So if you're the VC you'd want to move money into the more successful fund to generate better returns and higher carry (i.e. 20% of the profits after fees)."

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> There is a big difference between a VC firm offering services like recruiting, technical support, etc. to portfolio companies and Partner 1 is partners in a side business with his old college buddy and post-funding, Partner 1 says, "Use this firm to do XYZ". There are a couple of issues, but for most, especially first-time founders, VCs on your board, especially the lead, has a disproportionate amount of influence over a CEO. Secondly, Partner 1 should disclose this to his own VC fund / LPs; it's like any other conflict of interest disclosure you would make at any other job.

I haven't heard of this type of issue, more often it's use this law firm or recruiter or whatnot. Oftentimes they have relationships, get discounts, dinners / perks, etc. It's along the same lines as the $2,000 post-close dinner / night out many VCs come to expect.

</comment><comment><USER3> Sounds bad.

Remember, a VC is just someone who has convinced someone else to invest their money for them. Most money is invested wisely with smart, upstanding VCs, but bottom-feeding VCs seem to be able to find money to invest too. Because there's so little regulation, the dodgiest VCs are worse than, say, the dodgiest real-estate agents.

The victims in this situation are the VC's LPs, whose money may be ending up mostly in the partner's pockets rather than wisely invested, and the employees who work at these doomed companies. The LPs are in a position to complain and/or sue, but they may not be actively managing their money. In that case, their money will just go on hurting people. Sad.

Having capital turns out to be a big responsibility. It can do a lot of good if well-invested, or a lot of harm if badly invested.

</comment><comment><USER4> Providing services to other portfolio companies or otherwise related partners in of itself is not a bad practice, but can have many benefits for all parties involved.

Having said that, it should always be the CEOs and senior managements responsibility to do their due diligence to evaluate any service their business depends on so heavily and regularly renegotiate.

There's a good reason a Apple, Snap, Netflix etc. are using both Google and Amazon's cloud services to be in a position to leverage their relationship to negotiate better deals and not be dependent on a single provider.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes portfolio companies can offer services to each other for commercial rates. I think the issue here might be outlined here: "They charged over half of the total "investment", hundreds of thousands of dollars, for an app one guy could have built in 2 months."

If they are being sold a service for an inflated price then there could be grounds for charges. This could be a way to move money from one company to another.

One fund could be doing very well and the VC might be in carry whilst another is doing poorly. So if you're the VC you'd want to move money into the more successful fund to generate better returns and higher carry (i.e. 20% of the profits after fees).

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Portfolio companies using other portfolio companies for various reasons is really common. Sometimes it's that they give discounts or freebies to each other. Sometimes it's some personal preference or relationship of the VC giving a favor. It's not necessarily nefarious.

This exact thing just happened on the latest episode of Silicon Valley with Eklow Labs.

[http://www.vulture.com/2018/04/silicon-valley-recap- season-5...](http://www.vulture.com/2018/04/silicon-valley-recap- season-5-episode-5.html)

</comment><comment><USER6> I would say it's more common than people want to admit.</comment>


Show HN: Curator – visual notes for iPhone - <AUTHOR> http://curator.co/iphone

<comment><AUTHOR> After a great reception on iPad we finally launched on iPhone. Curator is a mix of Evernote, Pinterest and Powerpoint for mobile. Grateful for any feedback.</comment>


Erlang/OTP 19.0 has been released - <AUTHOR> http://www.erlang.org/news/105 <comment><USER2> * Like the gen_statem new state machine.

* mnesia_ext : means a whole set of new possibilities to scale Mnesia. I think Klarna started that work and was using it in production. LevelDB was used for the backend.

* 3-5x faster open_port means being able to start and execute external executables. Forking was basically moved to fork a special process as opposed to main VM.

Tracing should be a lot faster as well. This is the one I mostly exciting. Been using tracing instead of adding log statement but if it is faster, it means can do more in production with it. Saw they have lttng as well. Also worth playing with.

* Code loading is now parallelized. So hopefully startup should be faster.

* Domain sockets. I know some people wanted this for ages. This should be nice. There were external project which did it, but it is nice to see it in the VM.

* os:perf_counter/1 function. Probably a read out of rdtsc or such instruction. That should be fun to use.

* ++ operator for lists now uses a single pass, so should be faster (before used to use another pass to check if list is proper).

* Observer now has configurable update frequency and length for graph windows. I'll be using that. I like observer.

Very impressive. Not a lot of 30 some year old languages make such kind of updates (yes Erlang is 30 years old this year, that is probably older than most HNers here).

<comment><USER3> Regarding Klarna's work on LevelDB + ETS, there's this wonderful presentation given by Mikael: [https://vimeo.com/132692834](https://vimeo.com/132692834)

Here's the slides: [http://www.erlang- factory.com/static/upload/media/1434153406...](http://www.erlang- factory.com/static/upload/media/143415340626199euc2015mnesialeveldb.pdf)

<comment><USER2> Very nice. Thank you!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Erlang is written in a ton of quite readable C and assembly. If you like delving into the internals of advanced software, it's well worth a read. Take the HiPe compiler for example:

[https://github.com/erlang/otp/tree/OTP-19.0/erts/emulator/hi...](https://github.com/erlang/otp/tree/OTP-19.0/erts/emulator/hipe)

It deals with running native and interpreted program code together, just reading the comments gives you a feel for the kind of low level concepts that go into making such an interpreter. I like this one:

      /*
       * Native code calls an emulated-mode closure via a stub defined below.
       *
       * The closure is appended as the last actual parameter, and parameters
       * beyond the first few passed in registers are pushed onto the stack in
       * left-to-right order.
       * Hence, the location of the closure parameter only depends on the number
       * of parameters in registers, not the total number of parameters.
       */

<comment><USER5> Looks like it has gotten a lot better than "Now for the tricky bit" days.

See [https://youtu.be/lKXe3HUG2l4?t=640](https://youtu.be/lKXe3HUG2l4?t=640)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6>
      gen_statem a new state machine behavior

Very cool! For reasons not the least of which are the community involvement in its evolution.

      dialyzer: the support for maps is very much extended both the type specification syntax and the type analysis.

OMG! Yes! Finally `maps` don't have to be a giant escape hatch in the type- checking system.

      Experimental support for Unix Domain Sockets

Sweet tap-dancing Moses! This is awesome. I've wanted this for, so so so long. This should pave the way to all kinds of useful things. Better database clients, better Redis clients, more straightforward integration with things like libfiu and tcsd.

<comment><USER7> I cannot find the documentation for gen_statem anywhere; all I find is references to some specific examples.

<comment><USER8> Here: [http://erlang.org/doc/man/gen_statem.html](http://erlang.org/doc/man/gen_statem.html)

<comment><USER6> From the docs:

 _" This is a new behavior in Erlang/OTP 19.0. It has been thoroughly reviewed, is stable enough to be used by at least two heavy OTP applications, and is here to stay. Depending on user feedback, we do not expect but can find it necessary to make minor not backward compatible changes into Erlang/OTP 20.0."_

It's honestly hard to overstate how excellent seeing that note is. It's a significant change in tone regarding community involvement in the design, structure, and implementation of core OTP components. It's really exciting to see.

I can't help but see this as part of a halo-effect that originates in the inclusive and thriving community around Elixir. It really seems like both ecosystems are getting a lot from each other right now.

<comment><USER9> I think it's probably more of a consequence of the long long discussions that were had at [https://github.com/erlang/otp/pull/960](https://github.com/erlang/otp/pull/960) \-- with 15 participants from the OTP team, regular Erlangers, and I'm sure a few Elixir people too.

My idea here is not to remove merit from Elixir in helping the ecosystem, but in pointing out that the Erlang community itself is expanding on these ideas of involvement and a more open design.

<comment><USER10> Wow, that thread is impressive. I think I've never seen a Github thread that long, complex, and yet with such politeness.

The internet may have ruined me, but I somehow expected the thread to end up in insults and nasty things after a while; and here I am, amazed. Really well done.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> For anyone who's interested, we have some relevant community-run, regional conferences coming up in NYC next month:

\- Erlang Camp (Sat Jul 16), [http://erlang.camp/](http://erlang.camp/)

\- Elixir Camp (Jul 15-17), [http://elixircamp.io/](http://elixircamp.io/)

\- Phoenix Camp (Jul 15-17), [http://nyc.phoenix.camp](http://nyc.phoenix.camp)

\- Nerves Camp (Sun Jul 17), [http://nerves.camp/](http://nerves.camp/)

We've got a good mix of speakers coming together and the conference open to all (with suggested donation pricing for tickets).

We also still have a few session slots open if anyone wants to present (particularly around Erlang/OTP).

</comment><comment><USER12> Exciting two days in Elixir world! Elixir 1.3, Ecto 2.0, Erlang/OTP 19 - amazing!

<comment><USER13> Phoenix is hinting that 1.2 might drop too [https://twitter.com/elixirphoenix/status/745265003775823872](https://twitter.com/elixirphoenix/status/745265003775823872)

<comment><USER14> aaaaand there it is! [https://github.com/phoenixframework/phoenix/releases/tag/v1....](https://github.com/phoenixframework/phoenix/releases/tag/v1.2.0)

<comment><USER12> I'm soooo happy right now! :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Everything around the Erlang\Elixir ecosystem just seems to be in a dramatic climb these days.

<comment><USER11> totally agree, lots of activity/interest in NYC

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> And others think building on top of BEAM is risky...

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11946824](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11946824)

<comment><USER10> I honestly don't get that comment. It quickly mentions that the BEAM hasn't got a bright future, and then goes on the qualities of Scala, and how Ruby was horrible.

How does that contribute IN ANY WAY to a thread about a new version of Elixir being released? I'm not saying that what they say it's wrong, just tremendously out of context and unnecessary.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> erlang:open_port(spawn, ...) 3-5 times faster

mnesia_ext: plugin of external storage solutions to mnesia

<comment><USER18> Ah nice! ..wonder if mnesia_ext is bundled with leveldb support?

<comment><USER12> I'd rather have Bitcask or RocksDB - something that has better crash recovery capabilities. LevelDB was marked as being prone to data corruption. DETS has similar problems when not closed properly.

<comment><USER19> > LMDB was marked as being prone to data corruption

Don't know where you got your information from, but LMDB is verified as the safest storage engine:

[https://www.usenix.org/conference/osdi14/technical- sessions/...](https://www.usenix.org/conference/osdi14/technical- sessions/presentation/pillai)

<comment><USER12> Sorry, I was thing about LevelDB. ANd yes, you are right about LMDB!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Amazing! Now how do I use Elixir 1.3 with the new Erlang VM?

<comment><USER21> You just install the new Erlang VM, install Elixir 1.3, and that's it! Elixir 1.3 is compatible with Erlang 19, and will by default use the Erlang installation available on the path, so nothing to do in particular.

If you want an easy way to install both, you can check asdf [1].

[1]: [https://github.com/asdf-vm/asdf](https://github.com/asdf-vm/asdf)

<comment><USER20> Amazing! Makes me excited about programming again!

<comment><USER11> same here!!</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Winter chills limit range of the Tesla Model S electric car - <AUTHOR> http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2013/02/tesla-model-s-winter-chills-limit-the-electric-cars-range.html?EXTKEY=I72RSC0 <comment><USER2> Imagine if we listened to the unruly mob here and elsewhere that were calling for the NYT/Broder's head on a stick.

I recall one very long-winded rant here on HN where a commenter described Broder as having an axe to grind, a shyster, and concluded his comment with "Fuck the NYT. Fuck Broder."

All of this, in the grand scheme of the automotive industry, are small ripples. Tesla will survive this, and electric sales will proceed more or less unimpeded.

The real takeaway here is _keeping your cool_ and turning off the "mob outrage" circuit in your brain. The drummed up pitchfork-wielding mob was, in the end, a more sobering spectacle than any electric car issue.

I must sound like a broken record by now. It seems every month some one-sided account will splash onto HN's front page, stir up a hornet's nest of indignation, resulting in long, angry rants and calls for heads to roll. Inevitably a more balanced picture emerges - but the usual suspects will be back the next time someone writes a blog post manipulating their outrage.

Whenever a blog post is so _utterly absurd and ridiculous_ that it _demands_ unfettered and unrestrained anger, there is a strong chance you're being played.

<comment><USER3> I was surprised at the number of people casually accusing Broder of a conspiracy. Usually, it's the big company representative who gets the vitriol and the journalist is the underdog good guy, but for some reason, much of the reaction was opposite from the expected.

<comment><USER4> That's because Elon Musk is some sort of superhero genius to the many of the types that lurk here. The Jason Calicanises of the world have all but declared this guy automobile Jesus.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> >a high portion of freeway driving, which minimizes the opportunity for regenerative braking, are the most adverse conditions for any electric vehicle

That's a pretty nasty meme and it seems to be spreading. No, people: regenerative braking _mitigates_ the effects of braking on fuel efficiency! It doesn't overcome or reverse them. The laws of physics say that driving on the freeway with no braking is, and will always be, much better for fuel efficiency, in any conceivable vehicle.

<comment><USER6> Are slower speeds more efficient overall though, such that driving off the highway could make up for the energy lost to braking? With combustion engines I had always read that speeds around ~55 are at the crossover point where increasing wind resistance wins out over increasing engine efficiency, but I'm wondering if the math works out differently for electric cars?

<comment><USER7> The slowest speed in the highest gear will give you the most bang for your buck. I'm not sure what kind of gearing the tesla has though since electric motors are very different beasts to standard combustion engines.

<comment><USER6> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roadster#Transmission>

It's a fixed gear, so this is actually plausible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> >I exited the freeway, hoping that the lower-speed rural road driving would allow more regenerative braking and would extend the range.

This is two articles now where the authors, or technicians they're talking to, seem to think the model S has found away around the laws of thermodynamics. It has not. Regenerative breaking will not charge your battery any more than you drained it getting up to that speed in the first place. In fact, by definition, it will charge the battery _less_. So anyone who thinks the key to getting more range out of an electric vehicle is to abandon smooth and steady driving and find a way to slam on the brakes is in for a rude surprise.

<comment><USER9> In a car without regenerative braking, city driving will return worse gas mileage than highway driving. In a car that does have regenerative braking, city driving will often return higher mileage.

The regen braking isn't the sole source of efficiency gain -- aerodynamic drag, gearing and engine optimizing are responsible for the "true" gains -- but regen braking makes it more possible to realize the "true" gains because you're no longer throwing away all of the true gains on braking.

<comment><USER10> > In a car without regenerative braking, city driving will return worse gas > mileage than highway driving. In a car that does have regenerative braking, > city driving will often return higher mileage.

 _The above statement is false_. Regenerative braking in the Tesla (which only has regenerative braking on the rear wheels) only recovers about 20% of the energy lost in stopping the car. Accelerating again requires 100% of the car's final kinetic energy to be provided by the battery. Therefore city driving is _always_ less efficient than driving at a steady speed unless you're planning to drive at 90 miles per hour.

All regenerative braking can do is minimize the losses caused by stop-and-go driving, it is never an improvement over driving at a steady speed at the same average speed or, for that matter, most higher speeds.

I wish this myth would go away -- by way of some physics education.

> ... you're no longer throwing away all of the true gains on braking.

No, only 80% of them. Which means you would have to drive very fast to equal the losses of stop-and-go driving.

<comment><USER11> I'm no expert on this, but your 20% number seemed pretty low:

According to this, the tesla regenerative braking is just as efficient as the motor is at acceleration. Result: up to 64% of the original battery energy returned to the battery.

[http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/magic-tesla-roadster- regener...](http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/magic-tesla-roadster-regenerative- braking)

And this page about the Volt suggests that the efficiency might get up to 70% in some situations.

[http://www.designnews.com/document.asp?doc_id=235313&dfp...](http://www.designnews.com/document.asp?doc_id=235313&dfpPParams=aid_235313&dfpLayout=article)

This is confirmed by measurements which show pretty much all hybrid vehicles get better mileage in city driving than in highway driving.

<comment><USER10> > According to this, the tesla regenerative braking is just as efficient as > the motor is at acceleration.

That's true but misleading. If the motor's combined electrical and mechanical losses cause only 64% of the battery's energy to propel the car forward, then by that reasoning, only 64% of the braking energy is made available for charging.

Let's look at all the factors that influence the outcome:

1\. Both electrical and mechanical losses must be accounted for.

2\. The electrical loss creates a factor of 0.8, the mechanical loss also create a factor of 0.8. Result 0.64.

3\. On the Tesla, only the rear wheels have regenerative braking, the front wheels have disc brakes. Factor 0.5, so we are now at 0.32.

4\. During a stop, the car pitches forward onto the front wheels and unloads the rear wheels, this needs to be taken into account. Factor 0.8 for a total of 0.2: 26%.

So I stand corrected -- this analysis concludes that the regenerative braking scheme recovers 26%, not 20%, of the original kinetic energy.

A literature search reveals that the best regenerative braking systems that involve all four wheels and in which every effort is made to maximize efficiency, can produce about a 40% energy recovery:

[http://www2.hesston.edu/physics/201112/regenerativeenergy_cw...](http://www2.hesston.edu/physics/201112/regenerativeenergy_cw/paper.html)

A quote: "Since regenerative brakes can only recover about 40% of the energy we take the recoverable energy and multiply by .4 (Everett, Michael)."

The linked paper goes on to show that 40% is actually overly optimistic for various practical reasons. But notwithstanding that, we can take the original 40% figure and apply it to the Tesla. By taking into account that only two of four of the Tesla's wheels have regenerative braking, we arrive at a figure of 20%.

> And this page about the Volt suggests that the efficiency might get up to > 70% in some situations.

No reputable source makes claims this high _for a full round trip from battery stored energy to battery stored energy_ (the linked article doesn't try to do this). Also, the linked chart reports energy recovered in a four-wheel test and measured before being applied to the battery, not energy delivered to the battery as stored energy.

> This is confirmed by measurements which show pretty much all hybrid vehicles > get better mileage in city driving than in highway driving.

That's true, but that doesn't result from regenerative braking. It results from lower average speeds and reduced wind and mechanical resistance.

Remember that regenerative braking _cannot possibly_ improve on driving at a steady speed. That would violate some very basic physical principles.

<comment><USER12> _"3. On the Tesla, only the rear wheels have regenerative braking, the front wheels have disc brakes. Factor 0.5, so we are now at 0.32."_

I would hope that the on board software wouldn't use those front brakes during light deceleration. Anybody know more about this?

<comment><USER10> > I would hope that the on board software wouldn't use those front brakes > during light deceleration.

No, this isn't safe. A car that only allowed one set of wheels to brake would in some cases spin around dangerously. Safe brakes must apply the same force on all four (or more) wheels simultaneously.

Remember that the computer can't possibly know if the car is sliding across black ice, a situation in which the application of even force is an absolute requirement for a safe stop.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> What's with the "regenerative brakes" thing? It seems people think that if you use the brakes more frequently you'll get more range. The only thing regenerative braking does is that you'll lose less energy than if you didn't have it. It's still inefficient to slow down and speed up.

<comment><USER14> Yes, the only situation where it would increase your range is if you're going downhill (for a long stretch) and you're keeping your speed constant using the brakes

Not sure how Tesla does that (if it does 'engine braking')

And of course that's negated by the fact that you'll be going uphill in the way back, using more energy

<comment><USER10> > Not sure how Tesla does that (if it does 'engine braking')

Tesla uses the electric motors that normally propel the car by expending battery energy, but "in reverse" to generate a small amount of power while decelerating. It's better than nothing, but it's not as efficient as many people seem to believe.

> And of course that's negated by the fact that you'll be going uphill in the > way back, using more energy

Good example -- going downhill with your foot on the brake, recovers 20% of the car's kinetic energy lost by descending the hill. Going uphill again requires 100%$ of the required energy from the battery. So it's a net loss of 80% of the total energy represented by climbing and then descending the hill.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Reading all these reviews (and the occasional response from Musk), I'm surprised by how _complicated_ the accounts seem to be. Just once, I want to hear "the car predicted x miles remaining, and it turned out to have y miles remaining." But instead, everything is complicated by multiple readouts ("rated" and "projected"?!), ambient temperature, inside temperature, rate of speed, terrain, amount of regenerative breaking (by the way, it sounded like this is another reviewer under the mistaken impression that regenerative breaking yields a net positive on the battery, which is preposterous), etc. The cynic in me is tempted to think that Tesla purposefully made the range estimations complicated to make it difficult to say for sure whether the car fell short of its estimated range.

<comment><USER16> Tesla could do themselves a big favor by simplifying the display of range estimates. And improving their accuracy. It sounds like the kind of thing where you have to always assume it's a lot less than is being displayed.

How does that help anyone, including Tesla?

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> A quote: "As the range indicator sank to 20 remaining miles on the way to work, I exited the freeway, hoping that the lower-speed rural road driving _would allow more regenerative braking and would extend the range_."

Where is this stupid idea coming from? It's absolutely false -- regenerative braking can only reduce losses caused by braking, it doesn't extend the range of the car compared to driving at a steady speed. Don't expect to gain anything by choosing stop-and-go driving over steady-speed driving -- it doesn't work that way.

According to technical estimates, regenerative braking only recovers 20% of the energy otherwise lost in reducing the car's speed, but gaining that speed back requires ... wait for it -- 100% of the car's kinetic energy from the battery. Regenerative braking is better than turning all the car's kinetic energy into heat, but it has no advantage over maintaining a steady speed.

I wish this myth would go away, preferably by some education in physics.

<comment><USER14> But driving at a slower speed uses less energy, so it should (theoretically) increase the range.

Of course, the energy consumed in 1h of cruise driving is less than 1h of stop/go "at the same speeds" (YMMV of course)

<comment><USER10> > But driving at a slower speed uses less energy, so it should (theoretically) > increase the range.

My comment wasn't about low speeds, it was about stop-and-go driving. Driving at a steady speed is much more efficient than braking and then accelerating again.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> So it is possible to say something similar while maintaining journalistic integrity. Surprise surprise.

This is journalism.

Broder's sloppy crap was not.

Note the real issue, not that Mr. NYT's exaggerations and lies were 'close enough.'

This was never about defending Mr. Hyperbole, AKA Mr. Musk.

It was about a NYT reporter feeling free to take license because it encapsulated the spirit of the truth or some other lukewarm embrace of poor reporting.

</comment><comment><USER18> _and a high portion of freeway driving, which minimizes the opportunity for regenerative braking, are the most adverse conditions for any electric vehicle._

Alright, what am I missing? People Who Should Know keep making this strange claim that you get more energy from regenerative braking than not braking at all. I don't understand - when you're braking, you're only reclaiming energy you put there by accelerating in the first place.

I would have thought that freeway driving would be fairly ideal, since you're at a steady speed and basically only need to overcome air and rolling resistance, whereas if you're regularly using braking, you're also having to reaccelerate, plus you're losing energy in the form of heat and possibly sound.

I get the idea that adding regenerative brakes in the first place will increase your range, but I don't see why your range would be shorter because you don't get to brake. Am I missing something somewhere, or am I expecting too high a knowledge of physics in my car reviewers?

</comment><comment><USER3> Curious if there will be accusations that Consumer Reports is the latest to fall to the bribery of the oil and automobile industries, since I was told last time that the NYT was beholden to them because the NYT sells advertising space, or something.

<comment><USER19> In respectable newspapers there is a strict separation between the editorial department and the classifieds and display advertising departments.

In fact, even in less respectable newspapers this is generally true. I worked at a less respectable newspaper for several years; whenever I wandered into the editorial area I was treated as being slightly below toenail clippings in the order of creation.

It's best to think of a newspaper as a device that multiplexes two totally independent feeds. One feed is ads and classifieds, the other is editorial material.

Conspiracy theories to the contrary are just embarrassing. Really. Journalists are tremendously and fiercely proud of themselves (to a fault). Suggesting to a journalist at a serious newspaper that their writing is biased based on what the display department did last week is going to get a mix of reactions from laughter to a punch on the nose for uttering such inflammatory fighting words.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> "I decided to risk taking one for the team to determine the Model S real-world range when it's cold outside and you drive the car as you would any other car, electric or not."

He explains this as his reasoning for not recharging his car... Regardless of if it's cold outside, or if the car is powered by electricity, gas, or good intentions, if the car is telling you that you're running dangerously low on fuel, why would you not stop and refuel? I feel like stopping and refueling would be the real-world scenario.

<comment><USER21> "Why would you not stop and refuel?" Because otherwise I would never have bothered to read the article. As a potential Tesla owner in a cold climate, I want to know these things. I want to know how the car will perform if I abuse it in an emergency, without actually having to abuse it myself as a test.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> "To be clear, cold temperatures, need for cabin heat, and a high portion of freeway driving, which minimizes the opportunity for regenerative braking, are the most adverse conditions for any electric vehicle."

usage of "regenerative braking" makes me doubt his tech credentials, not braking is always more efficient than braking and storing that energy back into the battery.

I strongly feel this is a proxy article to give a saving grace to New York Times bungled review.

follow the <https://twitter.com/TeslaRoadTrip> to see how different owners are driving their Tesla to prove New York times lied

</comment><comment><USER23> Living in New England, 45 degrees is not "chilly", it's (at this time of the year) very nice. Will this car run at, say, 5 below? Cold, as a rule, is not kind to batteries. Though the tests are enlightening, they show this car is not destined for cold climates. And that's okay; cold + batteries != good, we understand that.

That said, if we ever want EVs to "take over" the gas-powered engine industry, there's a lot of work to do, and we're a far, far, far cry from running long- range trucks on EV (granted, no one's talking about that now, but that's the obvious ultimate conclusion).

</comment><comment><USER24> Why has no one made a practical diesel/electric hybrid car yet? This technology has been around for /over a century/ ( [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel- electric_transmission#Sh...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel- electric_transmission#Ships) )and I still have not seen a single diesel/electric hybrid.

Along these same lines, diesel cars aren't popular in America even though they get better mileage with less-refined fuel. I'm confident that if US auto mfgs wanted to, they could throw enough money at changing the perception of diesel as "dirty" in America to really help diesel take off. Why are we ignoring this perfectly viable, proven, reliable, and ancient technology in favor of battery packs which create tons of hazardous waste to produce and dispose of?!

<comment><USER25> What I would like to see is a Turbine/electric hybrid. It would answer most of the issues with running a turbine, and be able to burn a very wide range of fuels.

<comment><USER10> > What I would like to see is a Turbine/electric hybrid. It would answer most > of the issues with running a turbine, and be able to burn a very wide range > of fuels.

One reason this hasn't happened is that the goal is a fuel- and energy- efficient car, and turbines aren't very fuel efficient compared to piston engines, a popular misconception to the contrary.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> > As the range indicator sank to 20 remaining miles on the way to work, I > exited the freeway, hoping that the lower-speed rural road driving would > allow more regenerative braking and would extend the range. I got a little > "credit" by coasting and hovering on the brake pedal, which was soon > expended on the hills that followed.

Why do people actually think braking more would conserve energy?! I remember this being referenced in the NYT article as well...

</comment><comment><USER27> What's the deal with this? "I exited the freeway, hoping that the lower-speed rural road driving would allow more regenerative braking and would extend the range. I got a little "credit" by coasting and hovering on the brake pedal"

Is there now a pervasive urban myth amongst electric car owners that you can get free energy from the brakes? Or that you can extend the range in stop and go driving? The NYT journalist did the same thing. That's just crazy.

</comment><comment><USER28> These electric car reviews are beginning to remind me of Window users reviewing the Linux Desktop. Particularly this bit:

 _"I considered stopping in Milford, CT, for a quick "supercharge" as I had a few days earlier, but changed my mind in the spirit of my experiment. I knew the distance to my office was 55 miles at that point, so I decided to risk taking one for the team to determine the Model S real-world range when it's cold outside and you drive the car as you would any other car, electric or not. Call me a gambler, but I kept cruising and crossed my fingers."_

He intentionally didn't refuel when he had the chance, but believes this is the same as how he drives a non-electric car. That's insane. But he's so used to the gasoline paradigm (where you can currently refuel in many more places) that he doesn't even realise how crazy he is.

As I said, it's not much different from the person reviewing Linux who (in a Windows mindset) goes looking for downloads of LibreOffice on their website and ends up trying and failing to compile it from source or some other crazy thing that no actual Linux user would do.

</comment><comment><USER29> Well, obviously the only reasonable explanation here must be that Consumer Reports is in the pocket of big oil, right, right?

</comment><comment><USER27> Interestingly photographers have known about the effects of cold on li-ion batteries for a long time. It's common to keep your batteries close to your body to keep them warm when shooting on cold days.

</comment><comment><USER30> Another guy that doesn't charge his mobile phone to more than 90%. Excellent! And even though he didn't "rtfm" the car made it. At least this guy is a journalist.

</comment><comment><USER31> Yet another apples to oranges comparison:

Broder: "the temperature was still in the 30s"

Consumer Reports: "45° F"

<comment><USER32> You're the one comparing them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Consumer Reports are in the pockets of major oil companies. They gave good ratings to cars using gasoline, so they clearly have a bias toward others.

They drove the car on the cold on purpose instead of waiting for summer to come.

Tesla has data showing that consumer reports was lying, the temperature wasn't 45 degrees but 44 at least for a three minute period. Would you trust a liar?

</end musk defender at any cost bot> Hacker News is now Elon Musk News.</comment>


Ask HN: What do most people in tech agree on but would never say publicly? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> "It's just a job".

</comment><comment><USER3> "I'm working on a side project in hopes to make extra money because my job isn't paying me what I really want to be making."

</comment><comment> open-source-ux Take these with a pinch of salt...while the general sentiment in these statements definitely exist, I couldn't say how widespread they are...

 _Delusions of grandeur?_

Publicly: "We've built a truly innovate/revolutionary/life changing app/product/technology."

Privately: "Product XYZ isn't really innovative/revolutionary/going to change the world. It's just a mundane bit of tech, that might be slightly useful to someone. And of course it's ridiculously oversold and overhyped."

 _Online privacy_

Publicly: "We're deeply committed to your online privacy."

Privately: "We don't really care about your online privacy and will happily track you to death."

</comment><comment><USER4> Developers don't need to think or be creative anymore. They just need to complete tasks.

</comment><comment><USER5> Snapchat is worthless?

</comment><comment><USER6> this isnt really powered by AI

</comment><comment><USER7> \- Diversity hurts middle class white collar worker in the long term and used as a tool by elites to keep them in power.

\- forced diversity never works

\- hiring based on the race or gender has never worked and never will.

<comment><USER8> I disagree, and this isn't a good fit for the question. Most people who believe that drivel say it often when anonymous on the internet.

<comment><USER9> People say it anonymously on the Internet because, if said in the public square, they are often faced violence and censorship rather than rational discourse.</comment></comment></comment>


One Giant Step for a Chess-Playing Machine - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/26/science/chess-artificial-intelligence.html <comment><USER2> Interesting how this is covered in the New York Times, while earlier, AlphaZero (and its predecessor AlphaGo) showed the similar kind of insight in playing go (a much more complicated game than chess) coming up with moves that humans would dismiss almost immediately. Since then, go playing professionals have started to imitate this style of playing. I guess the same will happen with professional chess players in the coming years: there will be a less strong focus on material and more on positioning. Because AlphaZero cares less about pieces, but more about their position and abilities to attach and/or defend.

<comment><USER3> IMO, at the highest levels of chess, there has always been a focus on "positioning" (positional chess) over material. World Champions like Capablanca, Botvinnik, Karpov, and Kramnik all play/ed in a style that was postionally sound, and at times boa-constrictor like. If you want to be a grandmaster today, you have to be able to understand/execute concepts like giving up material to establish a fortress ( [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortress_(chess)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortress_\(chess\)) ).

The World Champion that played in the most sacrificial/attacking style, Mikhail Tal, was famed for giving up pieces to generate attacking momentum. Contemporary analyses of his play have found that some of these sacrifices were unsound, and some were actually the "best move" in a given position.

I don't think it's feasible to expect human players to be able to calculate at the ply/depth that AlphaZero (or other chess engines) is able to. See this example from the latest World Championship ([https://www.chess.com/news/view/world-chess-championship- gam...](https://www.chess.com/news/view/world-chess-championship- game-6-caruana-misses-nearly-impossible-win)). A "forced" win in 30 moves was available on the board, but it would've required that Caruana make moves that cut against the "principles" regarding piece placement ("positioning") that are drilled into chess players.

I think a simple reality is that the search depths that AlphaZero (and to a lesser extent other chess engines) are dealing with are simply beyond human capability. A human player trying to execute the sacrifices that AlphaZero did ([https://chess24.com/en/read/news/alphazero-really-is-that- go...](https://chess24.com/en/read/news/alphazero-really-is-that-good)) would be taking a stab in the dark. In most positions, they wouldn't really be able to calculate all the variations, or foresee how the endgame would play out.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> About the author (from the bottom of the article):

> Steven Strogatz is professor of mathematics at Cornell and author of the > forthcoming "Infinite Powers: How Calculus Reveals the Secrets of the > Universe," from which this essay is adapted.

</comment><comment><USER4> Is it just my sonar beeping off the charts, or does anyone else hear the unmistakable signs of a submarine article? (1)

Apologies in advance for what may be perceived as a rant. I have a very low tolerance for clickbait-y BS like this as it pertains to my own passions as a lifelong chess devotee and former professional player.

First, the author of the article has no professional credibility in either chess or machine learning. He's a professor of math and a writer. No disrespect to either math or writing, I love and value both very highly, but they have very little to do with chess and machine learning per se.

The problems is he tries to present AlphaZero as "humankind's first glimpse of an awesome new kind of intelligence," which is really a bit of a stretch unless you add the disclaimer that technically all AlphaZero does is play 3 types of perfect-information games quite well. This is undoubtedly a great accomplishment, particularly in the field of Go which many domain experts felt intuitively would not crack to our AI overlords before another 5-10 years of computing power/hardware advances at least.

(As someone who had the unfortunate label of "prodigy" applied in my youth due to earning the title of chess master at age 10, I consider myself somewhat of a domain expert in chess, and I was one of those people who got it wrong. I barely know the rules of Go, but intuitively I could comprehend that it was several orders of magnitude more complex than chess, and I was really hoping that the Go gurus would fend off the machines for longer. They didn't. Hats off to DeepMind.)

But. With all due respect to DeepMind engineers for an impressive result in chess and go, it's a bit too early to start thinking of AlphaXXX as an "oracle" where all we can do is "sit at its feet and listen intently" while we would "not understand why the oracle was always right" and eventually be left "gaping in wonder and confusion."

(As an aside, the amount of pseudo-religious worship language in the piece is truly off the charts. I realize it stokes the passions, but it would be great if we could talk about AI's true strengths and limitations without resorting to such histrionics. But I digress.)

Why is it too early to start bowing down to a new god? Well, for starters, they basically just brute forced the game of Go a bunch of years earlier than predicted, but this wasn't just a pure software win, this was also heavily connected to massive increases in computing power aka GPUs and ginormous cloud-based render farms.

Secondly, the author tries to make the leap from AlphaZero [good at 3 perfect- information games: chess, go and shogi] to what he calls "a more general problem-solving algorithm; call it AlphaInfinity". Note how he invokes the holy grail of AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) without actually using this term, which would set off alarm bells in, well, anyone who knew anything about AI who wasn't employed by DeepMind/Google.

Notice further how this massive leap from "machine that can play 3 games well" to "machine that can, you know, actually think about stuff like a human can, including these pesky 'edge cases' and un-trained-for scenarios that always confuse our algorithms despite their otherwise inhuman level of perfection".

One great example of such a case that may cause one to question these glorious predictions is a research paper titled "Neural Networks Are Easily Fooled by Strange Poses of Familiar Objects" which shows how ML models consistently mistake a school-bus for a snowplow under the right (snowy) conditions (2). Far be it from me to dare bursting the bubble/reality distortion field of certain ML leaders and visionaries, but c'mon - a human child, once they truly learned how to recognize a schoolbus, would never mistake it for a snowplow, even if it was upside down.

This flaw doesn't mean that we can't update training data to handle these types of rotations, but it does mean that we have a lot of work to do before we can say that these ML models have in some way grasped the "essence" of "school-bus" or [insert-other-object] here in a deep symbolic way, and by "deep symbolic way" I mean "any way that a human child learns how to do reasonably quickly before moving on to other, exponentially harder tasks".

I could go on, but I won't. Just in case my overall point isn't clear:

1\. AlphaZero is an unbelievably impressive accomplishment _within the limited subset of life that is [chess, go, shogi]_

2\. ML approaches, even in computer vision, have a long way to go before anything remotely resembling child-level human intelligence

3\. Therefore, can we please please stop the marketing masquerading as news articles about DeepMind's latest result. And if anyone at DeepMind is listening: your product is pretty sweet! It would be better strategically to simply let it speak for itself, without trying to frame it as AGI.

1\. [http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html)

2\. [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1811.11553.pdf](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1811.11553.pdf)

<comment><USER5> > technically all AlphaZero does is play 3 types of perfect-information games > quite well

You might be right about it being a submarine article but this seems to be underselling it. AlphaZero is (as I understand it) undisputed world champion by an indeterminate margin on the two most popular games, and has become so after only being given the basic game rules. If you told someone from 2015 that this would happen in the next decade, they'd laugh at you.

<comment><USER6> Is it the undisputed champion of chess? I thought that A0 had never played Stockfish 10, the current best engine.

<comment><USER3> FYI earlier this month, they actually did announce the results of a 1000 game match:

[https://www.chess.com/news/view/updated-alphazero-crushes- st...](https://www.chess.com/news/view/updated-alphazero-crushes-stockfish-in- new-1-000-game-match).

AlphaZero won 155 games, lost 6, and drew 839 games against Stockfish. Granted, this was against Stockfish 9.

This implies that AlphaZero was roughly +52 Elo rating against Stockfish 9 ([https://www.3dkingdoms.com/chess/elo.htm](https://www.3dkingdoms.com/chess/elo.htm)).

Stockfish 10 is currently rated ~32 points higher than Stockfish 9 ([http://computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/4040/rating_list_all.html](http://computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/4040/rating_list_all.html)). If we were to do very crude transitive reasoning, you'd expect AlphaZero to still beat Stockfish 10.

EDIT:

So apparently the +155, -6 score was against Stockfish 8. Stockfish 8 is rated by the CCRL list at 3379, with Stockfish 10 rated 85 points stronger than 8.

Worth noting that AlphaZero was only given 4 out of 9 hours of total training time when playing against Stockfish 8 ([https://chess24.com/en/read/news/alphazero-really-is-that- go...](https://chess24.com/en/read/news/alphazero-really-is-that-good)), but I guess we can't make any real conclusions about AlphaZero vs _Stockfish 10_.

EDIT 2:

So apparently AlphaZero also "defeated" Stockfish 9, but the preprint of the upcoming paper in _Science_ doesn't seem to provide a crosstable.

It seems that Stockfish 8 was given a 44-core machine to play on, and was not constrained in terms of time spent per move etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I know very little about AI, but something that excites me, maybe just romantically, is the idea of an AI taking everything it learned from one game and applying it to another.

Seems like we are happy to give them billions of games of practice. But what happens when exercise becomes a constraint?

You've played a ton of chess. Now here's the rules to Go. Now play one game of it.

<comment><USER8> There's a lot of research into this. If you're curious you can Google around for transfer learning and one shot learning.

<comment><USER7> Thanks for the terms to search.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Has someone applied this to online poker yet? Make some real money.

<comment><USER8> Heads up Texas holdem is "solved".

[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-to-fold- huma...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-to-fold-humans-poker- playing-ai-beats-pros-at-texas-hold-rsquo-em)

<comment><USER3> The vast majority of "action" available online is "6-max" (6 player) or "full- ring" (9 player). On a PokerStars, WSOP.com, or Party Poker, you're going to find that there are maybe 1/10th or 1/20th the number of headsup tables as higher capacity tables.

The development of "GTO" (game theory optimal) play in Texas Hold 'Em is certainly a first step in the direction of computers playing poker. However, there's still quite a long way to go.

Poker Snowie, one of the cutting edge "GTO" programs, is based off of NNs ([https://www.pokersnowie.com/about/technology- training.html](https://www.pokersnowie.com/about/technology-training.html)). At the same time, there are some glaring weaknesses in the software, namely that it can only offer suggestions at specific pot size bets (0.25, 0.5, 1, 2). The authors themselves concede some other weaknesses ([https://www.pokersnowie.com/about/weaknesses.html](https://www.pokersnowie.com/about/weaknesses.html)).

Worth mentioning that Amaya, the owner of PokerStars, has posted job openings for "AI researchers" ([http://www.starsgroup.com/careers/job/Poker-AI- Research-Engi...](http://www.starsgroup.com/careers/job/Poker-AI-Research- Engineer-oyBn7fwn) & [https://www.pokernews.com/news/2017/10/pokerstars-to- hire-ar...](https://www.pokernews.com/news/2017/10/pokerstars-to-hire- artificial-intelligence-researchers-29136.htm)). Some people think that the position may be to help PokerStars detect/combat bot use, but others think that there may be a (arguably bleak) future where players have the option to compete against Amaya-created bots online.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The prospect of curing diseases is wonderful. But for now, we're just using these algorithms to figure out how to maximize the amount of time people spend staring at their phones.

</comment><comment><USER11> I don't like the framing. AlphaZero is just a very refined and efficient form of brute force. Precomputing weights obtained by brute force doesn't make the overall enterprise not brute force anymore.

<comment><USER12> In your comment here and below it sounds like you're saying: "if you take a brute force algorithm and make it more efficient than brute force by not brute forcing the solution then it's just a brute force algorithm!"

If AlphaZero is brute force than any use of a non-exhaustive planning mechanism (pruned MCTS in this case) is brute force which is honestly ridiculous. Search and planning have a long history in both computer science _and_ neuropsychology because that is what we call the methods that are more efficient than brute force at the expense of some accuracy.

There are some problems with the article but it isn't that AlphaZero is just some overhyped brute force algorithm.

<comment><USER11> I never suggested it's overhyped. I think the specific terms being used to compare it to humans are inaccurate.

On a related note, AlphaZero used quite a lot of processing power - even with the optimizations, if it had to run on human hardware it would be pretty worthless.

<comment><USER13> > AlphaZero used quite a lot of processing power

It ran on a single machine with four TPUs. In a few years with a few more optimizations, I can imagine an equal strength implementation on a handheld chess computer.

If you're talking about training hardware, the correct comparison is against the processing time used by all serious human chess players through history because an apples to apples comparison would have both training from scratch (just the rules).</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Docker (Microsoft) - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/Microsoft/docker

<comment><AUTHOR> It's really exciting to watch the progress being made on this project!</comment>